Housing Advisory Committee Meeting   3/16/2022

All right.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

It is 1202.

And this is the March 2022 HAC meeting.

And I am calling it to order.

And by I, the

Chair notes that a majority of voting members are present and will therefore declare a quorum unless he hears an objection, which he does not.

So I'm declaring a quorum.

Welcome.

Looks like, let's see.

Let's make sure I got my organization here.

All right.

So having said that, we are looking at sort of a stacked meeting here today.

One is the regular hack, and then following that, following on from it, an allocation subcommittee meeting, which has several moving parts on it that have continued to move throughout the past couple of days.

So we'll sort of deal with that in due course.

Is there anybody here who is, oh, we're all friends here.

So without further ado, that takes care of housekeeping.

We have minutes from the February meeting.

If you all could review that.

Sorry, everybody.

Motion on the floor.

So moved.

Any discussion?

Great.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed?

Minutes adopted, great.

So, to sort of move quickly forward through the established agenda, let's start with locality updates.

Let me start with a county first.

I was expecting Alex to give the city update, but I don't see him here yet.

Dr. Pethey is in a Board of Supervisors meeting today, so she's not able to attend.

And she said to just let you all know there's no changes from the last report.

As to the city, I'm not specifically aware of anything.

That was Alex's remit.

Gotcha.

So if, if he parachutes in a little later, we'll pause for that.

Okay.

As far as I know, there is not any movement on that.

So that brings us on to UVA.

Both Alice and Julia were juggling three conflicts.

I'm not sure if the hack was third in line, but we weren't first.

So they are not able to attend today.

So that moves us on from there.

Subcommittee reports at this point, I guess, what do we have?

I mean, Ridge, is there an update to be given beyond the sort of

So just I look to convene a subcommittee meeting in the next two weeks.

Sorry.

To look at, there are four different statutes that deal with either partial tax exemptions or reductions or deferrals of assessments that

I think we could create programs around them.

They all require certification of the income of either an owner-occupied homeowner or the income of a tenant for purposes of establishing that the rental unit is being used by low-income residents.

And I would like to convene a policy subcommittee meeting to look at

how we would craft a qualification form because we decided the last meeting that the onus should be on the applicant to prove that either they're a low-income homeowner or that they are renting to low-income tenants and I think creating a uniform documentation process along with the program that we would like to create under the auspices of these statutes would be the best next step and I would like to bring to the

did the whole hack's attention an element in the code that might be interesting to the hack.

And it is a provision in the code which allows property tax payments to be deferred if your property tax bill has gone up more than 5% from the previous year.

And the policy subcommittee will look at whether or not

We should craft a tax deferral program for low-income residents whose taxes have gone up more than a certain percent, like 5% in the previous year, that would allow them to defer that extra tax payment until the property is transferred either to a purchaser or to their estate and look at whether or not that might provide some temporary relief from the

the increase in both assessments and the possible increase in property tax rates.

So that would be one of the four statutes that we would look at during the policy subcommittee meeting to look at what such program would look like and what benefits it might provide to low income homeowners in the city.

Right.

Thank you, Ridge.

I shot you a very brief email just a few minutes ago on yet another possibility to further confuse matters.

That's the accessory dwelling unit provision in the code that says Charlottesville can set up an accessory dwelling unit policy.

No, it's affordable, not accessory.

Yeah, that gives us a lot of broader ways of applying things.

But this is all to the aim of in the housing policy that the city adopted, it said, let's look at some of these existing programs that allow for some tax reduction or abatement as part of the toolkit.

Ridge and Cher.

I'd say I did, Ridge and I did talk about trying to find some experts on real estate tax policy and impacts on low-income housing.

I did reach out to the Weldon Cooper Center.

Unfortunately,

William Chobe from there was unable to rally one of his experts and then I got passed to a professor over at Virginia Commonwealth University and that person is out on leave, sorry, I forgot the term, sabbatical, so I unfortunately was unable to find an expert that would potentially be able to talk to the policy committee about impacts of real estate taxes on the portable house.

Slight deviation.

Welcome, Alice.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I didn't see that either.

That's hold on a second.

I'm not.

There you are.

OK.

Yes, Lisa.

Yes.

It's a little browner hand, so sometimes it's harder to see.

So it would, we would look at that, but instead of being limited just to homes that are 15 years old or older, I think we can broaden the application because there's another statute that allows a very similar approach, but for districts, areas of the city, rather than just housing that is more than 15 years or older.

And so I think we ought to look at how do those two things

fit together and maybe one would be broader than the other and apply to more people, either low-income homeowners or people who rent to low-income tenants.

So that would be one of the four statutes that we would put into this qualification documentation that we discussed at our last meeting.

Yes.

Let's leverage up what we've already done, but also look at a template that is available to us that was provided by legal counsel to city, which is the city of Richmond's ordinance, which is similar to the one that we looked at, but it applies to districts rather than just older homes.

I would suggest, first of all, I'm absolutely in favor of the policy subcommittee looking at this.

Thank you, Ridge, for doing the research, and I'm happy to participate.

One other tool that we have to make sure that we bring into that conversation is the research that the consultants did around sensitive areas.

So they did demographic research, significant demographic research, such as changes in property values, incomes, et cetera, to begin to draw the boundaries around sensitive areas contemplated in the future land use map.

and so in terms, so I think we're probably ahead of the game in terms of identifying districts.

Yep, and that's great and we can have districts where you have deeper benefits in certain areas than in others but I think the goal of the policy subcommittee is to make this as broadly applicable as possible while still being sensitive to

Agreed.

Okay.

Anything further on this?

Okay.

Yes.

OK.

Welcome, Alice.

Actually, it's Julia Monteith.

Oh, great.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Glad you're here.

Beg your pardon.

No, we don't have any updates at this time.

Thank you.

And I know Councillor Payne parachuted in.

Welcome, sir.

So I believe that's the only pending active subcommittee matter unless somebody else disagrees with me on that.

I don't think so.

Structurally here, in terms of this meeting, what we have sort of is a subcommittee meeting that is scheduled for, I guess it's technically scheduled to immediately follow this meeting.

And perhaps before we get to the other business of this meeting, if there is any, or perhaps Skandas on this, to sort of frame what that's about,

and then we can hopefully move on to that relatively briskly.

So be that as it may, so subcommittee report on allocations by way of a little bit of history, the allegation subcommittee was formed in 2017 at the request of the NDS staff to provide

assistance and collaboration in the evaluation of affordable housing fund applications.

The role there was with staff to review those applications and then with consensus recommendations go to city council for those actual allocations.

So in 17, 18, 19, that was the procedure in 20 due to the pandemic

We were all sort of back on our heels.

But here we are with remaining funds that are in that that are still undistributed and it's roughly $750,000.

As most of you know, we are between procedures.

We have a new body that is supposed to take over that role at some point that is yet to be stood up.

and what we have now is the city staff has taken a review of the existing ones and we now have the guts of that information that have been provided to the allocation subcommittee.

The membership of the allocation subcommittee is broad and the way we define it is anybody on the hack never ever is gonna ask for money from the affordable housing fund.

If that's you, you're on the committee.

That's how it works.

And over the weekend I sort of pushed out the documentation for that.

So we're going to be taking a look at that immediately following this meeting.

procedurally in what we need to do and exactly what our remit is is going to take a little bit of discussion at the beginning of that meeting, but that's sort of where we are.

So that's what's next on the agenda.

Chair, I just have an update on

OK, so I think many of you remember we did a bit of an analysis with the Center for Civic Engagement and Commissioner, I think,

where you just go.

Stolzenberg also engaged in this from the planning commissioning side regarding Airbnb VRBO kind of following the rules that the city had set in place regarding respecting zoning and actually not just having full-size houses, let's say being only used for, again, short-term rental.

So

There's been work by Commissioner revenue divers for the city and others throughout the state and they actually got some legislation passed that is now gonna basically make the short-term rental companies share information and remit the tax every month.

So city zoning administrators should be able to see where exactly all the rental activity is happening.

and also hopefully collect better the taxes which were previously not collected by the intermediaries and were supposed to be remitted by the hosts.

So this will go into effect it sounds like in a couple more months and we should have a better clarity around what is actually happening with all the short-term rentals in the community and are they following the rules in addition to increasing revenue.

So I posted the link to the legislation in the chat box.

Chris, so I guess if there's any sort of point from the affordability

Well, the analysis in

We have, and I can share it again out with everybody.

It seemed like there was 50 to 60 homes that were located in, this was including more than two bedrooms, so full-sized homes, you might say, that were being used exclusively for short-term rentals in the community, and that were not in appropriate zones.

So while that's not, you know, again, a smaller part of our overall housing stock, in theory, that should, again,

become, again, what's part of our housing stock and not be used for lodging.

So it, again, is not, I think, the silver bullet, but will help.

Gotcha.

All right.

So this is Anthony.

Can you hear me?

I can.

Sorry, my camera is not working lately, but I promise I'm actually here.

I wanted to just bring up that some of you may be aware there was a petition for housing that was created by people who are currently homeless in our community.

created and signed by about 20 members of our community who are currently experiencing homelessness.

I received this a while ago as well as some other service providers.

I think a copy was also sent to city council and it's a pretty amazing document.

It clearly kind of describes the need for permanent housing, especially for people who are homeless, have been homeless a long time with complicated health conditions.

And I wanted to

Yeah, I wanted to have to just know that this petition existed where we've met with some of the signers of the petition already.

We're planning another meeting later this month to see how we can better support their visions for this type of advocacy, but I wanted to have to know that this existed and

I don't have anything concrete at the moment for necessarily something the HAC could do, but I would love for you all to be aware of it.

And I would love to keep reporting back to you about progress we're making on this type of advocacy with people who are currently homeless advocating and clearly describing the need for permanent housing to be made available for people who are homeless.

So I wanted you all to know that that's going on and would like to continue updating you all if that would be okay.

and open to any suggestions or insights that any of you might have about the best way to support this kind of initiative.

I've never received a petition that was created and signed by people who are currently homeless.

I think it's a pretty amazing opportunity and really wanna, we need to be hearing more from people who are currently homeless about what they see for their future.

So I think it's an awesome opportunity.

Yes, sir.

Can you can do we have a can you point us to a can you point us to it?

Yeah, I can.

Or you can publish it here.

Whatever.

Send it to me.

Okay, I'll see if I can figure that out.

All right.

Okay.

Any other business before this committee at this time?

Any public comment at this time?

I see no hands raised, but if somebody sees something happening in that column, please let me know.

Okay.

Having heard none, I think even though we're a little ahead of schedule, I would suggest we move on to the allocations, which is gonna be a fairly meaty matter.

And in that, and having concluded the business here, the chair moves that we adjourn to reconvene an allocation subcommittee meeting.

I'm not even sure we need to do it that way, but that's what I'm moving.

So moved.

All right, thank you.

Any objection?

Hearing none.

OK, we've adjourned the regular HAC meeting, and I've just convened the allocation subcommittee meeting.

Welcome.

A couple of words on this at the outset in terms of participation.

Subcommittee meetings are open to active participation from everybody, regardless whether you sit on that subcommittee or not, except

In the interest of the review of the actual applications and the discussion thereof, if you've got an application in here, we can't recognize you to discuss it while it's here.

We do not have all of the applicants here.

Phil, can I make a suggestion as a point of order, which is to demote those of us who are

If it's not possible easily, I did receive two invites to this meeting.

One was a general public invite and the other was the panelist invite.

I don't even know if I have the power to demote.

Ms.

Parks, do I?

Or do you?

Sunshine, could you forward to the hack that link?

Once you all can find that, that would be great.

Okay, well, while we deal with the mechanics of that, we can deal with the aporia before we get there.

So, a little on the background on this, we are looking at the applications that were

submitted with a February 18th deadline.

We're looking at $750,000.

We received seven applications.

The city had a technical committee that looked at it and they also generated a matrix for scoring and we have their conclusions.

In terms of the work of this committee, I have asked for

and have yet not received the draft report that the staff was preparing for council.

This was originally supposed to be presented on the 21st of March, but we've been advised that that's being pushed back to the fourth, which gives us a little breathing room because we do not have enough time today to do what we need to do.

So there is that.

The so in the materials that were provided to the allocations committee, there are divided into two basic chunks, sort of the core of the allocations, which is the original notice of funding, the scoring system to be used, the tentative the tentative final conclusions and a summary.

And then we have all seven of the applications.

and procedurally, the ideally what one would do is we, and what I had hoped to do is take a look at the draft report that had already been presented so that we're not in a position of reinventing the wheel.

And then in reviewing the applications, provide any sort of commentary or thoughts that we might have collectively.

That doesn't, since we still don't have that draft, although I have requested it and I requested it I think first Thursday morning.

So I am hopeful that the city can produce it, but apparently I don't have a clear understanding of why we don't have it, but we don't.

So therefore what I thought it might be helpful to do in the meantime is to take a look at how we have looked at these in the past.

and then how to proceed.

I think that makes sense.

Well, they didn't turn off the cameras so we don't have to look at them.

There we go.

Thank you, sir.

And I don't know how much those of you had an opportunity to really look at this stuff in detail, what was provided.

I do know it was a substantial data dump.

So what I would suggest is we get ourselves organized as best we can and get started and then schedule something for the following week.

so that we can jump through and make some forward motion ahead of the April 4th deadline.

Yes, Lisa, yes, your hand is up.

And I apologize, it's not the shade of the hand.

So.

Okay.

I was going to reiterate what Lori said about some of the applicants still being on the call.

And also, full disclosure, I sat on the

the committee with the city staff.

So that committee who has previously reviewed these applications was not just city staff.

Right.

Thank you.

Full disclosure on my part, I sit on the board of PHA.

That may, in fact, disqualify me as well, even though my...

Yeah, that's right.

I'd forgotten that when I was scrolling out names.

Okay.

Yeah.

I understand you're at one removed, but still, there's that.

So they're saying they're getting kicked back into here.

I'm able to join as a member of the public with a different email address.

but yeah, I think, yeah, as long as you turn off the cameras, mute yourselves up and find another way to listen and we'll just keep going.

I don't know, I mean, we can't, I don't know what sort of an elegant way to do that.

So having said that, if we can turn our attentions to the core materials,

including the NOFA, the notice itself and what these decisions are being based upon.

And as we move through here, the committee can sort of determine how to best proceed with what we have in the absence of a draft report.

So

First, there should be at the back of that note for something called exhibit three.

I don't know if I can get can somebody pull these up between my.

If anybody had quick access to this.

To share a screen on it.

Perfect.

So the two pointy ends of the sphere when it comes to looking at these applications is their applicability to current policy and goals and how they fulfill them.

And the two, I don't want to say best, but probably the two most straightforward of those in terms of looking at them are the housing policy number one, which is also in that core folder.

That's the bottom link.

I pulled that and that's in there in its entirety.

And then the second one, which is the 21 comprehensive plan and their housing chapter, which is also in there, which has the housing goals and strategies, which is in turn linked to the affordable housing plan strategies in greater detail.

I didn't pull that over, but I did pull the comp plan summary of the goals and strategies.

So those are in there as well.

So these are the two determinatives.

Rory, you've dove around in that.

Did I cover the two major ones that are really driving that?

You're muted.

Sorry, what would you like me to click?

I just wanted to make sure that you have spent a lot of time with these documents.

I'm just trying to get confirmation that those are the two main thrusts.

There are other relevant information in the other ones, but those are really where you're going to find the core of it.

Okay, good.

Then the city is making use of a scoring matrix, which at first glance seems to me to be an improvement over the cobbled together method we were using, which is also a document there, which is a work, it's titled something like a scoring worksheet or something similar to that.

And we're gonna sort of live by that.

And that sort of provides an opportunity to take a proper look at, there you go.

And then that's this document here.

And it also has a summary of the summary.

of each applicant.

And in theory, as we review these in anticipation of our next meeting, we'll get a sense of how we should score them.

And then this of course is the summary of what was submitted.

So in the interest of disclosure in terms of communication on these matters, I did a couple of things to give

The first disclosure, I did get a ping from both Habitat and PHA on these.

The ping from PHA was, please be aware that we were not expecting to get $3 million, though that was our request that this was in combination with a larger project.

and that information had already been conveyed by the city.

So that was moot.

And then I did receive a communication from Habitat asking where the draft report was and having trouble opening one of the documents.

That's it.

But that's 100 percent of that communication, just to let you know.

So here are the but here is the sort of rundown of what's available and who asked for it and for how much.

The city looks at these in terms of tiers, right?

So tier one, which is the most heavily weighted and the most preferable, is what gets pointed towards 30 AMI and below.

And then secondarily, 60 and below, and then third and as a tertiary, 80 and below.

So you see the splits out of the requests of the various folks here as well.

So that's what we have to look at.

The idea would be to score and rank and figure out the best deployment based on cost per unit, based on applicability of those goals, and then to do the best we can to prevent a summary.

The city has already, that committee has already promulgated their conclusions, but in the absence of the report supporting them, I'm not sure how helpful it is to go backwards from there, if that makes sense.

This is sort of the tentative conclusions that the city, that has been reached at this point.

But again, if we don't know exactly how we got there,

and the rationale for each of it.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to start from there and back into it.

But there it is.

So this is what we have.

So the seven, it looks pretty daunting.

I'm grateful that there are two from LEAP, and I am grateful that the supporting staff capacity and background pages on those are essentially duplicative between the two.

So that sped things up a little bit there.

But otherwise, they've got some substantial heft to them, and it is gonna be a little bit of investment of time to review them, and make an attempt to score.

But my suggestion would be

to take the time to do the review over the next several days.

And then we reconvene with our conclusions and produce a list.

And hopefully by then we'll have the draft report so we can integrate it.

The scoring sheet, we can actually score everything on one sheet.

It took me a second.

I got that.

I meant do we each, as members of the committee, individually score them, and then are we going to try to reconcile them next week?

Are we going to run through it and score together and debate how many points each should get on each line item?

What should be the procedure there?

What do you think?

Right.

So I'll cover the first part.

What we've done before is everybody ran through it.

And then we sort of had a discussion and justified why we ranked what we ranked instead of so we individually ran through it all.

And then we argued about or discussed it never really rose to an argument of why we ranked ones the way we ranked them came to the consensus and moved on.

I don't see the benefit of everyone sitting here in silence while we read it and start scratching on a worksheet.

I think that makes sense, Phil.

I think that makes sense.

I did want to just bring up, I am feeling a bit

Strange about grading these applications, even though TJAC has not submitted an application, we work closely with many of these organizations and it could, you know, many of them affect homelessness directly.

Yeah.

That is true.

So I'll not be a part of this then.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I didn't list you.

Yeah, OK.

Thanks.

Hey, Bill, I'm going to have to drop off.

If you could just circulate what the final instructions are for us.

But it sounds like we're supposed to do our homework, grade these separately, and then reconvene.

If it deviates from that or whatever, if you could just circulate further instructions if there are any.

Apologies that I have to leave.

Well, you know, if I if I could figure out if I could figure out a way to thread that needle.

Sorry.

Yes, sir.

Sounds good.

And I will once again query with the city if we can get our hands on the draft report.

In terms of timing, I think we need to do this, get this done over the, you know,

Meet early next week at the latest is what I'm thinking.

So, but that's pretty much where we are.

Yeah, so I mean, I think I have a pretty decent sense of how to score these things from one to three for most of these line items.

What's a little unexpected to me, a couple of things.

First off, there's no like but for clause in the note requirements or the scoring sheet or really things to address that in the applications where typically when we see applications for like

Economic Development Funds, they'll say like, you know, why do they need this funding or it won't happen?

Versus it might happen anyway.

But this funding will save us from having to find other sources.

And along those lines, you know, particularly in, in the recommended funding, many of these, maybe all of them are partially funded.

and I'm confused as to how the committee, the review committee came up with the partial fundings and how to even make any sense of what even can be partially funded for that to do anything.

I mean, I guess something like down payment assistance where it's a set amount per person

Actually, down payment assistance was fully funded.

But as an example, down payment assistance or the LEAP program, it's a small chunk per household.

So you can maybe range how many households are helped.

But something like MACA or South First Street require far more than the funding we're giving.

So how do we say what the right amount of funding to give out of CAT is for something like that?

Yeah, I think the closest you can possibly get to that with the scoring would be to make these two that and I think it's the but for if the city puts in X

Why happens?

That generates that number of units or whatever.

Therefore, our cost per unit is better.

But I mean, it is sort of a backward way of doing it because you can't you have to go in and you have to do the calculation based on the actual money that is recommended to being provided as opposed to what's actually being provided.

So I guess there's a leverage factor that you have to determine as you go.

You know, for example,

CRHA asked for all 750.

And if they do that, the leverage per unit is X.

Assuming they can still accomplish it if they get 500, then the leverage per unit is Y, which sort of gets you in the trap of saying, well, fine, let's give them $50 and see how incredibly highly leveraged the cath money is.

So yeah, that might be problematic.

Thanks a lot.

So yeah, I don't have a solution to that.

I think that most of them, from what I recall, they do, each applicant does say, if they do have a but for in most of them, this is what we need or that happens.

And I think we wait that.

How do we wait?

No idea.

Okay, good.

So we can wallow in our mutual confusion there.

Again, I think that if we can get the

You had some eye problems, so I'm going to forgive you.

Within the packet of materials or links that we received, there were also copies of emails that went back and forth between Brenda and some of the applicants.

And those emails are relevant to answering some questions that you might have.

And if we can't, if we still have questions, I think that there should be time enough to ask specific questions to applicants.

Yes, ma'am.

I did put those in there and they're a little cryptically named, but they are attached to some of them are very simple, which is I meant to check this other box.

Some of them are responses to a direct question that needed a substantive answer.

And I would also say that I agree with you and thanks for bringing that up because I made a note somewhere.

If you have something that follows into, hey, what's the story?

with X as you're reviewing them, what I would suggest is that you email me and Brenda and saying, here are the questions I have for these following applicants.

And then she and I will figure out the most direct way to get those answered clearly.

But thanks for reminding me of that.

And actually, you're now over on the right side of the screen, so I can now see you clearly.

I'll just add, I don't know if this is helpful to you guys, but I just kind of put all of the PDFs together into one combined packet, maybe because I'm used to reading 200 page packets for agendas.

And that has each of the emails appended to each of the

the applications like in order, select together.

Or if you want to dump it in that folder, that'd be helpful.

I think you can.

Yeah, I think you can.

I mean, we all have day jobs.

So

I'd like to look at Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday for the second meeting.

Wednesday, midday is bad for me, but I can manage just about anything else.

So Wednesday afternoon.

All right.

Appreciate that.

Yeah, so I guess Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, you know, 10, 12, 2, 4 is really where we're at, something like that.

I don't know.

10, 12, 3.

Is there options?

Not that I want to interfere in your process at all, but I did want to let the group know that the draft scoring worksheet that was provided, the group reviewing the applications had significant discussion about it and decided to use it as a basis for discussion, but they did not use actually use that to score the applications.

They did acknowledge that the items that had points associated with them were all the criteria in the NOFA that was spelled out.

So they did refer to that during discussion, but they kind of generally talked around about how

objective it was and not as much subjective.

And as Lisa, please correct me or help if I'm not correctly describing this, but they did a lot more discussion over the merits of the application

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Brenda.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you again.

I sort of made a note on this that in past years, the scoring model's only so good.

You know, it's got the, one, it's got, you know, it doesn't cover all contingencies.

It's not subtle enough in some ways.

It betrays whoever wrote it the way they look at things from the get-go.

So it's tough to sort of do that, but it's a useful guide to figure out basically where you are.

And I mean, we find that there is a reasonably good correlation right between if it scores really well, it scores it's I mean, you know, if it scores beautifully or it scores terribly,

You're tending to be right, but everything that's in the middle is very hard to figure out unless you're doing subjective thinking.

But yes, thank you, Brenda.

That would be the plan.

We're not going to be married to this thing, I don't think.

But thank you.

All right, so I guess what we need to do is figure out when we're meeting and come up with that and get it noticed as briskly as we can and then circle back.

Early next week.

I did have one more question.

And I guess I'll also circle up with staff before I send out a doodle poll to see if they have constraints.

But I know communications is pretty stretched thin with running all these webinars.

But

My question was, in the NOFA, it has this must be fully spent within 24 months clause, which used to me kind of like more binding, more absolute than maybe the rest of the criteria, which kind of to me raised the question for one application in particular,

of whether these funds would be or even projected to be expended by, I guess it would be June or July 2024.

I guess it will come up during scoring to an extent, but you know, obviously there's some preliminary stuff to be done.

to create the logic application to design the project, submit the building permit.

Those types of questions is exactly what we reviewed while we were doing the process.

That's one point.

And I find that a second reading of these is very helpful.

Yeah, well, no legitimate question to start chewing on.

Something to start thinking about as we go.

Yes, sir.

Anything else we need to discuss?

I'm not seeing them.

Wait, sorry.

One more thing.

Um, so we, the dates that we would put in the doodle poll for, they're going to be next week.

Is it just Monday through Wednesday or do we have all week?

Yeah, here's my concern.

The fourth packet.

Um, I'm not sure what the exact timeline of that is anymore, but, um, the,

As you know, the please don't make it any later than is really that prior Wednesday or Thursday and, you know, threats of violence and dismemberment and death if you show up Friday night for it.

You mean the Thursday immediately before?

So we would have for next week, it would be all of next week.

We've got a week in here too.

That's right.

So yeah, we got all, let's, let's say all next week then.

So then that way we can get it done by the, yeah.

Excellent.

Thank you.

No, I'm not being used and confused by the spring market.

Not at all.

Don't mind me.

It's all blending together.

Thank you.

Anything else we need to discuss?

But yeah, great.

We got all next week.

Whew.

I can breathe.

All right.

Agenda items are actually due Friday, March 25th for the April 4th meeting.

So really we, the 20th, so really we're back to, I mean, Thursday noon and then we throw it together and get it there by, you know, yeah.

Thursday noon, Roy.

I think we need to meet no later than that so that we can have something by the next day.

Thank you, Brenda.

25th.

Good deal.

All right.

Back to my other question.

Any public comment at this time?

I don't see any again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so being no further business, if everyone understands their assignment, we'll get a Doodle poll in the next day to figure out when we're meeting next week.

Roy, I would suggest put as many times down there as possible so that we can be as flexible as possible.

Thank you.

Agreed.

OK. All right, ladies, gentlemen, thank you very much for your assistance.

We will reconvene soon.

We stand adjourned.